# Road courtesy maneuver: Naughty but nice **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 18, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187 "2009-10-18T01:20:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/141 "2009-10-22T23:55:08Z")
Farmer’s Pass…I like it! That would be something to see, especially a combine. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/142 "2009-10-23T00:03:38Z")
> [@chique](#): > > None of you have clicked my link to see what we’re talking about when we say “rural”, have you. How is it relevant? If you have two roads that intersect each other at right angles and one car on the cross road that you can’t see because he’s in your blind spot and he can’t see you because you’re in his blind spot, you have a potential (common) problem. It really doesn’t matter if you are the only people alive on earth. If you then choose to do something that is out of the ordinary such as placing yourself in a position where you might collide with the other car and where the other car would not expect a car to be, you’ve compounded the problem unnecessarily. The first link I posted specifically deals with collisions in rural areas due to the drivers not seeing each other, or seeing each other too late to avoid the collision. These collisions involve no visual obstacle other than the windscreen pillars on the cars. Hmm, ok, I’ve clicked your link and I’m not sure what you think is so special about that being so “rural”. It’s a standard country road with regular side roads. [This is way more rural](http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Broome+WA+6725,+Australia&sll=45.713072,-94.031811&sspn=0.029306,0.063858&ie=UTF8&cd=2&geocode=Fc0G7v4dsUFJBw&split=0&hq=&hnear=Broome+WA,+Australia&ll=-18.583125,122.031326&spn=0.318264,0.510864&z=11&layer=c&cbll=-18.539828,122.010413&panoid=aR33_qgQmxNWUrZZiCGxoA&cbp=12,211.9,,0,5), is just out of the town where I live, and I _still_ wouldn’t be doing that type of move (although it is very rare to even have a car behind you.) > [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > It’s legal to go 65, and even 70 on many expressways in the US. But it is definitely safer to go 55. Why aren’t we all doing that, then? For starters because it isn’t safer to be traveling slower than the surrounding traffic, and you can only control what you do, not other people. In the Northern Territory of Australia they didn’t have a speed limit outside the populated areas up until a couple of years ago, does that mean everyone should go as fast as their car will go? Or is it ultimately up to the individual to work within the framework of the road rules and to sometimes be more conservative than the rules require? ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/143 "2009-10-23T00:55:55Z")
[quote=“1920s Style “Death Ray”, post:142, topic:514187”] How is it relevant? If you have two roads that intersect each other at right angles **and one car on the cross road that you can’t see because he’s in your blind spot** and he can’t see you because you’re in his blind spot, you have a potential (common) problem. It really doesn’t matter if you are the only people alive on earth. If you then choose to do something that is out of the ordinary such as placing yourself in a position where you might collide with the other car and where the other car would not expect a car to be, you’ve compounded the problem unnecessarily. [/QUOTE] But we **can** see cars on the crossroads. We don’t make the turn unless the road ahead **and** the roads to the side are clear. Making the turn isn’t a last-minute decision. We make sure all the roads are clear before moving to the left lane, and as has been said, we’re only in the left lane for a couple seconds, and we’re moving slowly. We’re not doing the speed limit for half a mile on the left side of the road. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/144 "2009-10-23T01:52:35Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > But we **can** see cars on the crossroads. We don’t make the turn unless the road ahead **and** the roads to the side are clear. Are you aware of the blind spot created by the windscreen pillar? ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/145 "2009-10-23T02:06:25Z")
Yes, I am. When I approach the intersection where I make the turn, I’ve been watching the crossroad for at least a mile. I have a clear view of two miles of the side road. Plus, where I make the turn, the only crossroad is the road on my left – there’s no road on the right. When I’ve got that much time to scope out the road, using the windshield and the driver’s side window, the only way I’d miss something is if it dropped from the sky. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/146 "2009-10-23T02:49:28Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > Yes, I am. When I approach the intersection where I make the turn, I’ve been watching the crossroad for at least a mile. I have a clear view of two miles of the side road. Plus, where I make the turn, the only crossroad is the road on my left – there’s no road on the right. > > When I’ve got that much time to scope out the road, using the windshield and the driver’s side window, the only way I’d miss something is if it dropped from the sky. A car approaching the intersection at right angles at the same speed as you can be in your A-pillar blind spot the whole time you approach the intersection, unless you actively move your head to look around the blind spot, you may never see it until you hit it. It really doesn’t matter how long you’ve been able to scope out the road, it’s to do with _how_ you scope out the road. In the study I cited above, on only 36 out of 224 trials did participants move their head to look around the blind spot. Some people felt they had been tricked into having a simulated collision, but they hadn’t, they’d just had their poor scanning technique exposed. Edit: By moving their head, I mean move their head position not just turning their head. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/147 "2009-10-23T02:58:20Z")
> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > It’s legal to go 65, and even 70 on many expressways in the US. But it is definitely safer to go 55. Why aren’t we all doing that, then? Because you are wrong again. It is not safer to go 55. It is safest to drive the speed that 85% of the drivers are driving. Slower is not safer. > **[Speed Limits: Slower Does Not Mean Safer - National Motorists Association](https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/speed-limits-slower-safer/)** > > As we’ve noted many times in the past, speed limits are the most safe when they are set using the 85th percentile speed. Numerous studies have shown that the 85th percentile is the safest possible level at which to set a speed limit, but the excerpt... Quit running over a dead horse. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/148 "2009-10-23T03:10:25Z")
No, I _haven’t_ read this entire discussion of the obvious… Since we are all adults, we should all know what the little lines on the road mean. QtM: I have never seen that manuever, but would endorse its use by responsible grown-ups. The idea of my windsheid post creating a blind spot so large as to block my view of oncoming traffic? Um, how big ARE the vehicles where you drive? Main reason for posting: I know what the lines, signs, lights all mean. However: As a intelligent adult I **WILL** substitue my judgement for that of a bit of paint, metal, or light bulb. I know the existing conditions a LOT better than the paint does. I’m 60 and have driven a couple of 100’s of thousands of miles in the US - including being the only thing moving in blizzards and freezing rain. I have driven in rural WI - there really are little county roads with unlimited visibility - it would be perfectly safe to use the silly strip of asphalt in any manner. Hell, a light plane could land, refuel, and take off again on some off those roads and nobody would know it ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/149 "2009-10-23T03:48:50Z")
[quote=“1920s Style “Death Ray”, post:146, topic:514187”] A car approaching the intersection at right angles at the same speed as you can be in your A-pillar blind spot the whole time you approach the intersection, unless you actively move your head to look around the blind spot, you may never see it until you hit it. It really doesn’t matter how long you’ve been able to scope out the road, it’s to do with _how_ you scope out the road. [/QUOTE] Head moving aside, this is highly unlikely in this scenario, because while both cars are decelerating, they are not decelerating at the same rate. One is only slowing for a turn, and the other is decelerating for a full stop. The only likely way that a vehicle traveling perpendicular to another will remain totally hidden in that (tiny) blind spot is if neither decelerate for the coming intersection and their speeds are matched. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/150 "2009-10-23T04:11:54Z")
[quote=“1920s Style “Death Ray”, post:144, topic:514187”] Are you aware of the blind spot created by the windscreen pillar? [/QUOTE] Yes, and the study you cite doesn’t prove anything. Sure, an A pillar might create a (moving) blind spot. However, what you’re failing to acknowledge is: A) most people aren’t driving a vehicle for the first time. As you spend time in a vehicle you learn the blind spots and learn to accomodate those while you drive. First time in a simulation isn’t the same thing. B) Drivers should be looking far enough to spy vehicles waiting at or approaching intersections. Not to mention that most drivers aren’t just staring straight ahead (type I mentioned below). They are constantly scanning at least at level II, left, right, in the rear and sideview mirrors. Doing anything less means you aren’t driving defensively. C) The study addresses 4 types of scanning behaviors by drivers and how well those behaviors coorolate with collision rates and "vehicle acquisition. The types are: I. Eyes fixed- peripheral vision only II. Eyes only scan III. Eye/head scan – head turns but no change in head position IV. Active scan – head moves around left/right, forward/back (looking around A-pillar) Not many people drive like zombies (type I). Quick and dirty summary of the study: The more people look around while driving the more likely they are to see other cars and the more likely they are to avoid accidents. Wow, bid deal. I’d wager that a driver will actually shift behavior from type II up to type III and even IV as they approach a point where a decision (e.g. turn, exit, pass, farmer turn, etc.) is to take place, something that doesn’t appear to have been addressed in the study. The study also isn’t clear about how the interestions were controlled. It sounds to me like vehicles were intenionally kept at the same speed at the simulation driver and in their A-pillar blind spot up to a certain point and then “let loose” with the simulation driver expected to yield if he/she saw the vehicle. This obviously doesn’t jive with the farmer’s turn scenario. D) I’m also dubious about the high collision rate of people using Type II scanning. Really, 60%? Why aren’t our rural highways littered with smashed up vehicles if 60% of the “eye scan only” drivers are crashing? Seems to me the drivers in the study were set up to fail. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/151 "2009-10-23T05:34:04Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > Yes, and the study you cite doesn’t prove anything. Sure, an A pillar might create a (moving) blind spot. However, what you’re failing to acknowledge is: > > A) most people aren’t driving a vehicle for the first time. As you spend time in a vehicle you learn the blind spots and learn to accomodate those while you drive. First time in a simulation isn’t the same thing. No, the simulation is set up to be as much like driving as possible, it’s not like driving for the first time, it should be like driving as normal. The following is from the study: > [@](#): > > Participants in this study drove very much as they would in the real world. This was determined by the information on their questionnaires and by comments made to the researchers. Other participants sometimes expressed mild anger at being tricked or fooled into a collision, which was not the case. It is simply that the A-pillars are very effective at obscuring the view of drivers to the point that even repeated scanning without an actual displacement of the head is insufficient to reveal the approaching test vehicle. > [@SmellMyWort](#): > > B) Drivers should be looking far enough to spy vehicles waiting at or approaching intersections. Not to mention that most drivers aren’t just staring straight ahead (type I mentioned below). They are constantly scanning at least at level II, left, right, in the rear and sideview mirrors. Doing anything less means you aren’t driving defensively. You still don’t seem to understand the A-pillar blind spot. Looking further ahead doesn’t work because the other car will be in your A-pillar blind spot the whole time you’re approaching the intersection, right our from miles away if the roads are long enough and the speeds are similar enough. You need to move your head position, and this is something that most of the test subjects weren’t doing. The fact that a couple of you are countering the A-pillar blind spot argument with “looking further ahead” seems to indicate that you don’t understand the problem and probably don’t take adequate measure to protect against it. > [@](#): > > The more people look around while driving the more likely they are to see other cars and the more likely they are to avoid accidents. The point is that people don’t look around enough. Not many people in the study were using the good scanning technique that you describe below. > [@](#): > > Wow, bid deal. I’d wager that a driver will actually shift behavior from type II up to type III and even IV as they approach a point where a decision (e.g. turn, exit, pass, farmer turn, etc.) is to take place, something that doesn’t appear to have been addressed in the study. But that’s exactly what was addressed, the people approaching these intersections were failing to step up their scan rate and adjust their technique. Again form the study: > [@](#): > > The comment was often made that the car just “appeared” at the intersection. The “appearing” cars were easily visible for perhaps 10 seconds prior to the collision by anyone not seated in the driver’s seat. Several participants never altered their scanning behaviors sufficiently even after repeated collisions. > [@SmellMyWort](#): > > The study also isn’t clear about how the interestions were controlled. It sounds to me like vehicles were intenionally kept at the same speed at the simulation driver and in their A-pillar blind spot up to a certain point and then “let loose” with the simulation driver expected to yield if he/she saw the vehicle. This obviously doesn’t jive with the farmer’s turn scenario. No that’s not quite how it worked. The other car was set up to match the speed and deceleration so it stayed in the blind spot, but it was only in the blind spot if the test subject didn’t look around it, just like in the real world. This is what the simulation drivers were failing to do. The other car is only in the blind spot if the simulation driver doesn’t move their head, all they had to do was move their head to look around the A-pillar and they would’ve seen the other car. > [@](#): > > D) I’m also dubious about the high collision rate of people using Type II scanning. Really, 60%? Why aren’t our rural highways littered with smashed up vehicles if 60% of the “eye scan only” drivers are crashing? Seems to me the drivers in the study were set up to fail. Because as you note, the other car was purposely set to stay in the blind spot, this is not something that happens all the time, but when it does happen, it will catch those out who don’t have an adequate scan. Some key points from the study that I think are relevant to what some here are saying. > [@](#): > > …with respect to driver training, it is not sufficient that drivers be taught, “look left, look right, look left again” before proceeding into an intersection. \*\*An awareness of the weaknesses of human perception should be nurtured. Once we are made aware of the ability of our brains to fill in for missing information (visual)\*\*i it is possible that a lessened sense of complacency while driving may result… > > …It is particularly in rural settings that the effect of complacent scanning behaviors may occur… > > …We assume that with a clear field of view that we are aware of any potential oncoming vehicle threats. This is not necessarily the case. My final points on the subject. Why is this not applicable to farmer’s turn scenarios? The only difference with a farmers turn is that one of the cars driving through the intersection is in the wrong lane. If it wasn’t a farmers turn, there wouldn’t be any collision chance because neither car’s paths would cross (assuming here that the car on the cross road is turning right toward the farmer’s turning car), once you put yourself onto the wrong side of the road though, you have to hope that everything else goes well for you. Personally I’d prefer to stay on my side of the road because my idea of good driving is to avoid taking unnecessary risk, and as there is a perfectly adequate alternative to the farmer’s turn that is just as courteous to the following driver but avoids placing yourself in the path of opposite direction traffic, I see the farmer’s turn as an unnecessary risk. It seems that some others think that being a good driver means you can take an unnecessary risk as long as you’re good enough to “do it safely.” ---
**Author:** ![chique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@chique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chique)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/152 "2009-10-23T12:18:52Z")
Excellent. Next time I spend five seconds in a left-hand lane in order to check the mail I’ll move my head around a lot. You have solved a virtually non-existent problem. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/153 "2009-10-23T12:53:28Z")
> [@ghardester](#): > > Because you are wrong again. It is not safer to go 55. It is safest to drive the speed that 85% of the drivers are driving. Slower is not safer. > > [http://www.motorists.org/blog/speed-limits-slower-safer/#more-726](http://www.motorists.org/blog/speed-limits-slower-safer/#more-726) > > Quit running over a dead horse. Sorry, but that’s not precisely the case. You do realize that the site you noted recommends raising speed limits, don’t you? They feel the limits are set too low, and we’ll all be safer if they’re raised. From your link: > [@](#): > > The NMA has been fighting back against unrealistic speed limits for years (starting with the 55 MPH National Speed Limit), but we need your help to spread the word. In addition, the data is collected from a small series of monitored speed zones in Texas, and has been subject to criticism from other highway safety experts. From a rather more reputable journal: [Long-Term Effects of Repealing the National Maximum Speed Limit in the United States](http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/9/1626) > [@](#): > > We found a 3.2% increase in road fatalities attributable to the raised speed limits on all road types in the United States. Overall highway mortality was lower when the National Speed Limit was 55. Which your link opposed, and helped to change. However, I agree that it is smarter to go with the flow if the the average speed is significantly higher than the posted limit. But raising speed limits, which is the goal of your link, has been demonstrated to raise morbidity and mortality. Which is a tangential issue anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/154 "2009-10-23T14:01:05Z")
> [@chique](#): > > Excellent. > > Next time I spend five seconds in a left-hand lane in order to check the mail I’ll move my head around a lot. You have solved a virtually non-existent problem. Thanks! Ok so you remain willfully ignorant? That’s fine I’m done here. I’ll leave you with this, it’s aimed at motorcyclists but the concept is valid for all vehicles. [http://www.safespeed.org.uk/bike005.pdf](http://www.safespeed.org.uk/bike005.pdf) (PDF) And this one, it even includes a little diagram. [Vehicle blind spot - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_visibility). Good luck with your driving. ---
**Author:** ![chique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@chique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chique)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/155 "2009-10-23T14:28:34Z")
Good, because you seem to be arguing that everyone should avoid driving on secondary roads because a car coming from a tertiary road might possibly blow the stop sign and broadside you. I was getting worried about never being able to go home again. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/156 "2009-10-23T16:08:17Z")
When come back, bring reading comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/157 "2009-10-23T16:13:16Z")
[quote=“1920s Style “Death Ray”, post:151, topic:514187”] No, the simulation is set up to be as much like driving as possible, it’s not like driving for the first time, it should be like driving as normal. [/quote] I think you misunderstood. My point was that driving in the simulator would be like driving a car you’re never driven before, not that you are driving for the first time ever. > [@](#): > > You still don’t seem to understand the A-pillar blind spot. I understand it just fine. It’s a valid concern and something people should be aware of while driving. However, I think the study creates a “perfect storm” scenario that is highly unlikely to occur in real life. Also, I have never seen a Yield sign at a rural intersection, only Stop signs. > [@](#): > > The point is that people don’t look around enough. Not many people in the study were using the good scanning technique that you describe below. Probably because they were in a simulation. From the study: _The high incidence of low level scanning types (eyes fixed, eyes only, types I&II) may be an artifact of the VE design._ In real life, people look around, especially when they are planning to execute a turn, a factor which was not included in the simulation. Quoting the study: > [@](#): > > …It is particularly in rural settings that the effect of complacent scanning behaviors may occur This point is nothing but speculation. I would argue that rural drivers tend to be more aware because they are on the lookout for deer and other animals in the road. > [@](#): > > Why is this not applicable to farmer’s turn scenarios? Your answer can be found in the study: _With no required deviation in heading ( **such as left turn lane affords** )…the wide-open rural road intersection may induce a false sense of safety and a state of complacency._ When executing a farmer’s turn, you are basically creating a left turn lane and the lateral movement changes the area obscured by the blind spot. Seems the moral of the story is that you should check your A-pillar blind spot before doing any type of maneuver. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/158 "2009-10-23T16:29:49Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > I think you misunderstood. My point was that driving in the simulator would be like driving a car you’re never driven before, not that you are driving for the first time ever. Driving in a new car shouldn’t be a problem should it? > [@](#): > > I understand it just fine. It’s a valid concern and something people should be aware of while driving. However, I think the study creates a “perfect storm” scenario that is highly unlikely to occur in real life. Also, I have never seen a Yield sign at a rural intersection, only Stop signs. I wouldn’t know what’s normal over there. It doesn’t really matter because most people don’t stop at a stop sign anyway. > [@](#): > > I would argue that rural drivers tend to be more aware because they are on the lookout for deer and other animals in the road. I doubt that, I’ve never had trouble staying awake driving in a city, driving in the country is a different matter altogether, it’s easy to get complacent when there is a lack of stimuli. > [@](#): > > When executing a farmer’s turn, you are basically creating a left turn lane and the lateral movement changes the area obscured by the blind spot. That’s a valid point. I originally brought up the blind spot as an example of why it’s a bad idea to overtake through an intersection in response to a poster who thought that a farmers turn was no more dangerous than overtaking through an intersection. I subsequently considered that it might also be applicable to the farmers turn itself, but you’re right, the lane change does help negate the problem of the blind spot. My objection to the farmers turn still stands on the basis that there is an equally courteous alternative that doesn’t involve driving on the wrong side of the road. Funnily enough, I wouldn’t drive on the wrong side of the road to check my mail box either, but I guess I’m just ultra conservative like that. ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/159 "2009-10-23T16:50:26Z")
[quote=“1920s Style “Death Ray”, post:158, topic:514187”] Driving in a new car shouldn’t be a problem should it? [/quote] No, of course not. But the blind spots in a new car (and the simulator) might be different than in your own car. I would expect people in a simulator to look more because I equate it with driving a new and unfamiliar car. But they didn’t, so maybe being in a simulation cancelled out that behavior. > [@](#): > > My objection to the farmers turn still stands on the basis that there is an equally courteous alternative that doesn’t involve driving on the wrong side of the road. Funnily enough, I wouldn’t drive on the wrong side of the road to check my mail box either, but I guess I’m just ultra conservative like that. Funny, I don’t do the mail box thing either, and I would feel more uncomfortable with that (because you’re actually stopped on the wrong side) than with a farmer’s turn where you’re only in the lane for a couple seconds. Luckily I’ve noticed that a lot of newer rural roads have short right-hand passing lanes built in so that the traffic behind left turners can use that instead of the shoulder. That removes the need for a farmer’s turn all together (unless you really are a farmer and you’re driving a huge piece of machinery that takes up more than one lane).😉 ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187/160 "2009-10-23T19:31:46Z")
Normally there is enough room to pass on the right of the left turner, but I commend the OP, what are roads need is a little more niceness and consideration and a lot less rules. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/road-courtesy-maneuver-naughty-but-nice/514187.md?page=9)